[Genghis Khan]

And contrary to the belief of secular theists, absolute faith isn't required for religion.

I'm not a secular theist, but you're right. Religion is opium for the masses and has been operating as such for a very long time. However, people who are genuinely religious do have strong faith in a monotheistic deity, and many of them carry that into their everyday life and encourage elected officials to practice religious values and a religious thought process in their work as elected officials.

[Rothbardian]

I'm not a secular theist, but you're right. Religion is opium for the masses and has been operating as such for a very long time. However, people who are genuinely religious do have strong faith in a monotheistic deity, and many of them carry that into their everyday life and encourage elected officials to practice religious values and a religious thought process in their work as elected officials.

If you believe in a non-physical entity that can alter reality, such as giving a person special powers, then you are a theist. Monotheism is a recent western trend, but that's not really relevant. Believing that a priest can turn bread into dead flesh, that a sacrifice to Poseidon will prevent your fishing expedition from being ravaged by storms, or believing that putting on a blue uniform with a shiny badge gives you a right to kill and pillage, this is equally relevant.

[Genghis Khan]

Believing that a priest can turn bread into dead flesh, that a sacrifice to Poseidon will prevent your fishing expedition from being ravaged by storms, or believing that putting on a blue uniform with a shiny badge gives you a right to kill and pillage, this is equally relevant.

That would depend where that "right" stems from. If it's a state-given right, then yes, being a member of a law enforcement agency that is state sponsored, does give you the right to use a gun and enforce the law. That being said, a state sanctioned officer can and sometimes does stand trial and go to prison if he has broken that state sanctioned law.

That has nothing to do with belief and does not equate in any way to thinking theological thoughts. The analogy you're making is fundamentally flawed.

[Eran]

That's already allowed, and no one is talking about limiting it.

No, it isn't. Or, to be more precise, there are many circumstances under which it is prohibited.

For example, many such exchanges would be considered operating a business, requiring all sorts of licenses and regulations. Or they many involve the sale of restricted or prohibited goods. Or they would be considered making a profit, and at least one of the people involved would be expected to hand over some of their possessions to the authorities, or risk arrest or confiscation.

You see, you may think that your liberal state tends to leave people alone. It doesn't.

[Genghis Khan]

Or they many involve the sale of restricted or prohibited goods.

I don't think people should be allowed to trade Plutonium freely with each other, for example. What you don't seem to internalize is that you live in a society. You're not a lone wolf on this world. You can't just do whatever you want, whenever you want, but that's no reason to say "government tyranny" every time the smallest thing is restricted under some cases. There is no living in a world where a 100% of what you want is always allowed. I don't know where you grew up that would make you think that's a possibility that was somehow taken away from you.

[Rothbardian]

That would depend where that "right" stems from. If it's a state-given right, then yes, being a member of a law enforcement agency that is state sponsored, does give you the right to use a gun and enforce the law. That being said, a state sanctioned officer can and sometimes does stand trial and go to prison if he has broken that state sanctioned law.

That has nothing to do with belief and does not equate in any way to thinking theological thoughts. The analogy you're making is fundamentally flawed.

No, it's not, because a government doesn't exist. Therefor it cannot grant rights or have any effect on the material world. So being affiliated with a government cannot give you rights that you wouldn't otherwise have. That is literally the same as believing in transubstantiation.

If you're in the west you may say something like 'a state represents the people so the right is granted by the people', which doesn't change anything. A person cannot logically grant a right he or she doesn't possess to another person, and the number of people involved is therefor irrelevant.

So people cannot directly give rights they don't have to others (I don't have the right to murder your children so I can't give my neighbor the right to murder your children), and there is no amorphous, invisible mental blob called the government drifting in the ether that can give rights either.

[Eran]

I do indeed live in a society, and I have every expectation of a web of rules that living within society would entail. That is not in question.

The question is only regarding how those rules would be created and enforced.

Government, I believe, is both illegitimate and inefficient source of rules. Far too often, rules are set based on the convenience, interest or prejudice of the rulers. Rules prohibiting a voluntary act of exchange between two responsible adults are an example.

I tried to show you that government rules know no boundaries, certainly not boundaries of common sense, privacy or respect for individual autonomy.

[Genghis Khan]

No, it's not, because a government doesn't exist. Therefor it cannot grant rights or have any effect on the material world.

Except, it really does and really can. That's the world we live in, and that's how humanity wished it to be.

Government, I believe, is both illegitimate and inefficient source of rules.

Government is chosen by the people. What would make it more legitimate?

[Rothbardian]

Except, it really does and really can. That's the world we live in, and that's how humanity wished it to be.

No, a government does not exist, and you can't prove that it does. A government is a concept, just like god. Believing it is real doesn't make it real. If you really think a government is real, I'll make you the same offer I give to people that think god is real: prove it.

And I would challenge you to find a single government that arose because 'the people' wanted it. You have 6000 years of world history to select from. Good luck.

[Kman]

Government is chosen by the people. What would make it more legitimate?

What people? I am a people and I didnt choose my government.

I also find your hostility towards religion amusing, socialists like you all strongly believe in your own version of religion, you dont call it a religion but it is clearly a religion. This religion of yours in some ways resemble christianity, you demand that people give to the poor and you demand that security exists for you in the form of government healthcare and government welfare programs. Religion is just moral preferences and you obama democrats believe in forcing others to live by your religious/moral preferences, you believe in forcing others at the point of gun to accept your version of morality/religion.

The modern western world has essentially turned into a religious tyranny.

[Rothbardian]

Government is chosen by the people. What would make it more legitimate?

Government, by definition, is the removal of the right of people to choose by threat of violence. The majority oppresses the minority, removing the minority's choice. In fact statism is so twisted that even the minority is oppressed. There is no 'should we have a government at all' vote. It's always 'choose statist option A or statist option B'.

If you feel that legitimacy is created by voluntary choice then you are an anarchist. Whether you realize it or not.

[Genghis Khan]

No, a government does not exist, and you can't prove that it does.

Sure I can. I can tell you where they are, I can show you documents they're written, rules they've enforced, programs they've operated etc etc etc. None of those apply to god.

socialists like you

As far as you're concerned, anyone left of Mises is a socialist. I find your argumentation style juvenile.

Government, by definition, is the removal of the right of people to choose by threat of violence.

And who gave them the power to do that?

The majority oppresses the minority, removing the minority's choice.

To do what?

If you feel that legitimacy is created by voluntary choice then you are an anarchist.

I've been called a conservative, statist, socialist, Democrat, Rockefeller Republican, liberal and now anarchist. Fascist is the only thing I haven't been called yet and I intend to do something about it.

[Rothbardian]

Sure I can. I can tell you where they are, I can show you documents they're written, rules they've enforced, programs they've operated etc etc etc. None of those apply to god.

No, you can't. You can find documents written by people, with rules enforced by people. A government is a concept, just like god. Your argument is like saying the fact that I can go to a bookstore and buy a bible proves god exists.

A man doesn't change what he is by putting on priest robes any more than a man changes what he is by sitting behind a podium in front of a flag. Just like religion, the difference is purely conceptual and your perception of its legitimacy is largely aided by rituals and symbols.

And who gave them the power to do that?

Governments give themselves powers and rights. Not that it matters, the fact is, removing choice is what governments do.dd

To do what?

Depends on the law. The very existence of a government remove's the population's choice of whether or not they want to live without a government though.

I've been called a conservative, statist, socialist, Democrat, Rockefeller Republican, liberal and now anarchist. Fascist is the only thing I haven't been called yet and I intend to do something about it.

What people call you, and what you call yourself, is irrelevant. You can call yourself the president with the right to take from your neighbors if you want to. Your claim will be false whether or not you have the army necessary to prevent people from retaliating against you or not.

I am speaking based entirely on your claim that legitimacy is derived from voluntary association. If that is true, and I agree with you, then you reject government, which makes you an anarchist. Either you are an anarchist, or you reject your own claim; you can't be a statist and hold your claim to be true.

[Genghis Khan]

You can find documents written by people, with rules enforced by people. A government is a concept, just like god.

Well now you're going into the whole metaphysical realm of things. By that notion, there are no companies, institutions, schools etc etc. So nothing is real and we just believe in stuff. So what's your point?

Governments give themselves powers and rights.

Who gave them the authority?

The very existence of a government remove's the population's choice of whether or not they want to live without a government though.

Governments were formed because humanity felt the need for them.

[Eran]

Government is chosen by the people. What would make it more legitimate?

Being voluntarily accepted by all the people, not just a working majority.

Your problem is that you are thinking of society as a single person. That "single person" elects a government to set the rules. So obviously there can be nothing wrong.

To show yourself there may be something wrong, consider what you count as the limits of legitimate action by a majority-supported government.

Surely you'll agree that a majority decision to eradicate all members of a minority population is not legitimate, even though that action is facilitated by a majority-elected government, right?

So merely being majority-elected doesn't automatically make government legitimate. I know of no person who believes that it categorically does. The difference between us, then, aren't over whether majority is enough to make any government action legitimate, but rather over which majority-sanctioned actions are legitimate, and which aren't.

As far as you're concerned, anyone left of Mises is a socialist. I find your argumentation style juvenile.

That's not too bad. Some of us consider Mises himself to be a socialist (to the extent that he wasn't an anarchist )

And who gave them the power to do that?

Nobody gave them the power. They abrogated that power. However, stable governments have generally been able to cause the public to view them as legitimate. So in a sense, the public gave them the power to oppress.

Governments were formed because humanity felt the need for them.

As a matter of historical record, this is clearly false. Governments have generally been formed by conquering forces or domestically-grown war-lords and similar tyrants.

[Genghis Khan]

Being voluntarily accepted by all the people

So you believe that there's an arrangement available that will please a 100% of the people? Do you realize how delusional that sounds?

Surely you'll agree that a majority decision to eradicate all members of a minority population is not legitimate, even though that action is facilitated by a majority-elected government, right?

Rules exist in society to protect from government overreach, except these rules do not think "overreach" means more taxation and regulation. It's restricted to really bad things, like your example.

So merely being majority-elected doesn't automatically make government legitimate.

It does, actually. Once the majority have chosen them, they may conduct the business of the nation to their liking. They were given authorization from the general population to do that.

So in a sense, the public gave them the power to oppress.

"Oppress" is your take on things, but as you said so yourself, they were given that authority by the public.

Governments have generally been formed by conquering forces or domestically-grown war-lords and similar tyrants.

For some reason, you do not consider these tyrants as part of that humanity, even though they clearly are, but more to the point - Why would these people ever feel the need to rule over the population in the first place? That instinct they had, to institute order over others - Where does it come from?

[Kman]

So you believe that there's an arrangement available that will please a 100% of the people? Do you realize how delusional that sounds?

No he doesnt and that is why he is an anarchist because democracy necessarily involves limiting people's freedom beyond that golden rule of ''your freedom ends when it starts to infringe on my liberties''.

Rules exist in society to protect from government overreach, except these rules do not think "overreach" means more taxation and regulation. It's restricted to really bad things, like your example.

Where are these limitations on democracy written down? I wasnt aware that such a set of rules existed which could block the will of a democratic majority.

For some reason, you do not consider these tyrants as part of that humanity, even though they clearly are, but more to the point - Why would these people ever feel the need to rule over the population in the first place?

Because it is highly profitable to be a king and a master of the slaves that you conquered? It is the rule more than the exception that warlords conquering a peaceful non-violent population ended up living their lives in outrageous luxury at the expense of the population they subjugated to economic slavery.

That instinct they had, to institute order over others - Where does it come from?

Most likely greed.

Edit: Oh yeah and kings dont create order, order exists in a people naturally and inherently provided a large part of said population has good morals.

[Rothbardian]

Well now you're going into the whole metaphysical realm of things. By that notion, there are no companies, institutions, schools etc etc. So nothing is real and we just believe in stuff. So what's your point?

I'm not being 'metaphysical', I'm being what you would probably call scientific. Companies, institutions, schools, etc, these are all concepts used to describe aspects of reality.

If you want to claim something exists, you have to be able to prove it. I would expect an atheist to understand this.

If you still want to define a government as the bureaucrats that administer that government, we can go through the subsequent logical tests to see if your claim is valid.

Who gave them the authority?

As I just said, the people that make up governments give themselves authority. Who gave authority to the men who wrote the constitution? No one, they just did it. If they didn't have an army, to force compliance no one would have known or cared.

Governments were formed because humanity felt the need for them.

Still waiting for you to prove this. As I said, you have 6,000 years of global history at your disposal. Surely you can find just one instance of a group of people demanding a government come rule them.

[Genghis Khan]

If you want to claim something exists, you have to be able to prove it. I would expect an atheist to understand this.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at.

If you still want to define a government as the bureaucrats that administer that government, we can go through the subsequent logical tests to see if your claim is valid.

I still don't understand what you're trying to get at.

As I just said, the people that make up governments give themselves authority.

And the people being governed largely agree that a government is necessary. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and ask people.

Still waiting for you to prove this.

To prove what? There's nothing to prove. That's like asking proof that the Italian people demanded that Pizza be invented. No one stands in the street and demands that specific term. Humanity feels an underlying need for certain things, and eventually someone comes up with them, in some form or another.

If humanity didn't feel the need for governance, why did humanity invent governments in the first place? If it's the strong that created governments, why bother? Why not just use your strength to kill anybody who disagrees with you or won't give you what you want?

[Eran]

So you believe that there's an arrangement available that will please a 100% of the people? Do you realize how delusional that sounds?

Which is why I don't believe any government is ever going to be legitimate.

Rules exist in society to protect from government overreach, except these rules do not think "overreach" means more taxation and regulation. It's restricted to really bad things, like your example.

Hold on. So you acknowledge that the majority may to "really bad things". And that there are some rules that even a majority shouldn't be allowed to break. Excellent. In principle, we are in agreement.

Now for the details.

Could you provide any rational basis for what those rules (the ones that even a majority may not break) are? Obviously we cannot rely on majority opinion on this question, right? What would you suggest as an alternative source?

It does, actually. Once the majority have chosen them, they may conduct the business of the nation to their liking. They were given authorization from the general population to do that.

Not quite. We agreed that they are bound by some rules (e.g. the constitution) that prohibit them from "conducting the business of the nation to their liking". Thus we both agree that not every action by a duly-elected government is legitimate, right?

"Oppress" is your take on things, but as you said so yourself, they were given that authority by the public.

The main problem is that the authority to oppress (e.g. to take people's property without their agreement) didn't belong to the public to begin with, and thus couldn't have been given by the public to their representative officials.

If "the public" has no right to steal my property, neither can they give the authority to steal my property to government officials.

Why would these people ever feel the need to rule over the population in the first place? That instinct they had, to institute order over others - Where does it come from?

Greed.

Throughout history, it had always been nicer to be a ruler than a ruled. Becoming government is very lucrative indeed.

And the people being governed largely agree that a government is necessary.

The vast majority of people living in a modern democracy indeed agree that a government is necessary. 2000 years ago, a similar majority believed that sacrificing to the Gods is necessary. 500 years ago, a similar majority believed that having a single, absolute monarch is necessary.

All it means is that I (and other anarchists) have our work cut for us to persuade the majority that they are wrong.

However, while individuals may voluntarily subject themselves to government's rule, they have no authority to hand over to government officials with which the latter would be entitled to force people to subject themselves to that rule. None.